--- Jean-Louis Couturier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 14:06 2003-01-29 -0800, Gautam wrote: > >No. I think that arguing that France and Germany > are > >selfless is, almost by definition, ridiculous - > when > >have they _ever_ acted in such a way? If you say > that > >about the US, it's at least possible. It has > >happened. > > It has happened post WWII. Before that, France was > a colonial > empire bent on dominating what parts of the world it > could. The > USA was trying to do the same, but all the good > spots were already > taken. The same holds for Germany except for the > time that they > spent recovering from WWI.
Your argument about American colonial policy strikes me as insupportable. The US was the foremost anticolonial power in the interwar period, and this position caused great tension with Britain, for example, as the US kept trying to force it to give up its colonies. Notably the US did not - as it easily could have - traded its support for the Allies in the First World War for colonies (as Japan did, for example). When, incidentally, has it happened post World War II? In Indochina? Well, not exactly. In the anti-colonial campaigns in Algeria, where the French general-in-chief publicly explained how a major method of interrogation was electric shocks applied to the genitals? That wasn't terribly altruistic either. It also explains why I find French criticism of Guantanamo - where prisoners are given three hots and a cot and never tortured at all - somewhat annoying, but heck, that's the way these things go. I guess sinking the Rainbow Warrior probably counts as a public service, but I'm not thinking that it was motivated by a sense of human dignity or anything like that. > > After WWII, the US did indeed show a lot of > compassion. This is > very honorable, but we could also say that after > WWI, it was evident > that pettiness wouldn't lead anywhere interesting. > Furthermore, there > was a popularity contest going on between the US and > the USSR. > Since then, pure generosity from the States has been > scarce. Really? As George Bush said a few days ago, which country provides 60% of world food aid? Who intervened in Somalia to prevent a famine? Who did pretty much all of the fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo? I don't recall anyone else doing that recently. Who _still_ has troops protecting South Korea? That's a UN Mandate - where are French soldiers (not, given France's military record, that we'd _want_ French soldiers, but that's a different argument). None of these things are in our interest by any reasonable definition of the world. They were, however, the right thing to do. Kosovo, of course, was only necessary because Europe made a _choice_ to be too weak to fight a fourteenth-rate military power in its own backyard. That was a choice. If you wish to be taken seriously in international relations, you must, in fact, be serious. This choice is an example (one of many) of France and Germany's fundamental unseriousness. They want power, but they're not willing to pay for it, and they think they deserve it. That is, well, childish, really. > Of course it is, it's like saying that if Bush wants > to go > to war with Iraq, then they must be responsible for > 9-11. > Quoting the idiots from the opposing side doesn't > get the > discussion anywhere. > Unfortunately, except for Prof. Hoffmann, there isn't a whole lot on the other side. And even Prof. Hoffmann wasn't up to his usual standards, I'm sad to say. There is fairly intelligent argument about whether this war is a good idea - I hadn't really _decided_ until a few weeks ago, to be honest. I just don't see any from our erstwhile allies. They aren't interested in the people of Iraq, and they don't really seem to care if Saddam gets weapons of mass destruction. It won't be their problem if that happens - as usual, we would have to clean up the mess. > I don't agree. They would probably let Saddam stay > where he is just because there's no good way to oust > him. That's the problem with this situation. The > US > has decided on its own that enough was enough. It > is > making up the rules as it goes and what the world, > including french and germans, are thinking is: > what's it > going to be next time? We're at a point in world > politics > where we can start interfering in other countries' > business. > That's all good and fun, but there should be rules > and the > rules shouldn't be written by just one country. If > the US > insists on playing by its own rules, it should > expect that > many countries won't want to play. > > Jean-Louis Let's be really clear on this. French and German policy has consistently been to weaken any and all attempts to depose or weaken Saddam. Do you disagree with this? They have consistently advocated lifting the sanctions, they crippled the first and second inspection regimes, and so on. What in that record makes you believe that they have anything but an active preference that Saddam remain in power? Where is there _any_ evidence in the record of the last 12 years that they would lift a finger to remove him? Second, you keep talking about the rest of the world, but the rest of the world doesn't agree with you. Britain doesn't. Australia doesn't. Spain, Portugal, Italy, and all of Eastern Europe just came out on our side. So by "the rest of the world" you mean France, Germany, and a bunch of dictatorships. Well, okay, but, well, that's not a compelling argument to me. UN Resolution 1441 was approved unanimously. It was unambiguous about the consequences of a material breach. Hans Blix was unambiguous in stating that Iraq is, in fact, in material breach. So, having approved those actions, France and Germany are essentially saying "We didn't mean it last time!" Again, fundamentally they are unserious. Or more accurately, they are very serious, they're just not serious about disarming Hussein - they're playing a very different game, and it's time we (the United States) recognized that and treated them that way. The argument about interfering in other countries internal affairs is, I'm afraid, kind of specious. Who were the foremost advocates of intervening in Kosovo? Well, that would be France and Germany, right? That was an internal affair. What was happening in Serbia wasn't _nearly_ as bad as what happens routinely in Iraq. So if your argument is based on the Westphalian principle, then the same people defending it now were more than eager to overthrow it earlier. Nor has France (for example) been all that enthusiastic about the rules when it intervened in the Ivory Coast or Rwanda (in that particular case, _on the side of_ the people committing genocide). So where were the rules then? You talk about rules, but in point of fact, it's the US and its allies that are taking the rules seriously. Rules only have meaning if someone enforces them. The rules are, in this case, the relevant Security Council resolutions. We want to enforce them. France and Germany wish _not_ to enforce them. But if you want to argue that the rules are important, the argument that the rules are important, so the most important thing we can do is do nothing when they are flouted - that's not such a good one. Finally, you mention that the US wants to write the rules. Partly, that's what a hegemon does. The extent to which the US actually plays by the rules is pretty remarkable, but _of course_ it has a disproportionate role in writing the rules. That's pretty much the definition of a hegemon. But the US does all of the heavy lifting of enforcing the rules. Its our soldiers around the world who take the risks and pay the price for maintaining those rules. If you want to have more influence on those rules, the US is unique among all the hegemons in history that _it encourages other countries to do so_. We _want_ the other democracies of the world to put more effort into writing those rules. The coin of the realm is simple. Do some of the work of defending them. The choice not to do so marks those who criticize them as fundamentally unserious. In political science they're termed free riders, but in common use the word is usually parasites, isn't it? If you don't pay the piper, you don't get to call the tune. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
